Opens in a new tab

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 13 March 2025)

Date13 March 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_7866/2025 · ORD_12267/2025
PartiesMicrosoft Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 13 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ACT_18406/2024, ORD_12267/2025), the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi, presiding and rapporteur, T. Zhilova and W. Samoud) rejected Microsoft’s request to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing’s infringement action on EP 2 671 173 declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361, and refused leave to appeal. The order follows on from the order of 3 March 2025 on Suinno’s lack of valid representation.

Question

Does the claimant’s lack of valid representation, its representative holding extensive administrative and financial powers within it, make the action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361?

Decision

Under the order of 3 March 2025, made in the same proceedings in light of the Court of Appeal’s order of 8 February 2024, a lack of representation gives the party an opportunity to cure it and does not lead to inadmissibility. The ground relied on therefore does not exist (paragraphs 6 and 7). Moreover, inadmissibility is manifest only where it is apparent from the pleadings without in-depth analysis, on simple facts such as a mandatory time limit missed without justification, not on complex assessments with a debatable outcome (paragraphs 8 and 9). Even if the point were not definitively settled, it would call for in-depth examination (paragraph 10). Leave to appeal is refused: the Court of Appeal has already ruled on the facts and the applicable rules, the case law is consistent, and an immediate appeal might be decided after the oral hearing (paragraphs 11 and 12).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 48(1) and (2)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262.1(b) and 361
Case law cited
Ocado Innovation, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 11 February 2025, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft, Paris Central Division, 3 March 2025, Court of Appeal, 15 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_570/2024), Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de Microsoft tendant à l'irrecevabilité manifeste de l'action de Suinno est rejetée et l'autorisation d'appel refusée.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 671 173
Method and means for browsing by walking
recorded proprietor: Suinno Oy
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 27 other decision(s): Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 7 January · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 22 May 202 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 28 April 2 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 7 April 20 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Februar · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Decembe · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Novembe · Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.